Maintaining a legacy or building for mirrorless, who benefits?

If Canon makes a full-frame mirrorless camera, should they forego some of the potential size benefits to maintain full EF-mount compatibility? And just how compatible would it be?

More than ever, rumors are circulating that Canon and Nikon are finally going to take mirrorless seriously by building full-frame mirrorless cameras. These rumors, which may well turn out to be nonsense, all seem to suggest that these cameras will be built around the companies’ respective DSLR mounts.

I’m going to argue that the right answer is much clearer for a manufacturer than for the end consumer. And I think I can guess which option we’re likely to see.

Supporting your legacy

The benefits of supporting your legacy mount seem obvious: the manufacturer gets to keep selling their existing lenses and the consumer ends up with a huge range of lenses to choose from. Surely there’s no conflict there?

The advantage of all (or most) of an existing system’s lenses being compatible from day one seem overwhelming. Plenty of choice, the ability to sell mirrorless cameras to existing lens owners and no reputational damage. Everybody wins, right?

"There's a risk of building a system that prioritizes backward compatibility over maximizing performance"

The problem with building a mirrorless camera with a full-depth mount goes deeper (pun intended) than all of your mirrorless models being bigger than necessary. That said, even people who prefer larger cameras are usually referring to grip depth and spacing of controls, rather than demanding their camera has a big box of fresh air in the middle of it, for no functional reason.

A question of focus

No, the bigger issue is that most DSLR lenses aren’t designed for mirrorless. I’m not just talking about some designs being larger than necessary, I’m talking about the use of focus motors that are great for DSLR phase detection but that are woefully clunky when driven using contrast detection AF. Secondary sensor AF, as used and painstakingly optimized for DSLRs is very effective at telling the lens where it needs to move its focus elements to. The ring-type ultrasonic motors used in most high-end DSLR lenses are great at responding to such a command.

Contrast detection asks very different things of its lenses. Instead of racing to a particular point, they need to smoothly scan through their focus range then perform a series of back-and-forth movements to find perfect focus. The result tends to be more accurate but requires a lightweight focus element and a very differently type of focus motor.

The K-01 used a full depth Pentax K mount which gave instant access to lots of lenses. Unfortunately, none of them had really been designed with contrast detection in mind...

The alternative approach: on-sensor phase detection, is in its relative infancy. It may be able to make better use of existing lenses with ring-type motors, but it’s still not clear how well it can interpret significantly defocused scenes.

Also, at present, most on-sensor phase detection information is fed into what are more precisely described as 'Hybrid' AF systems: they get very close to focus using phase detection then perform a CDAF hunt to confirm the optimal position. Perhaps this will change, hopefully without the loss of the precision that mirrorless AF tends to excel at, leaving us just with the size disadvantage.

It's notable that, when it's trying to build fast-focusing lenses for its mirrorless E-mount, Sony doesn't tend to use ring-type focus motors. In the case of the 16-35mm F2.8 GM, it uses twin piezoelectric actuators.

Alternatively, of course, there's a risk of building a system that prioritizes backward compatibility over maximizing performance. It's noticeable, for instance, that Sony makes very little use of ring-type focus motors in the lenses its developing for the E-mount, despite having experience of using them for its DSLR A-mount.

‘It fits’ isn’t the same as ‘it’s good’

Either way, there's a risk that we'll be offered something that fits but doesn't necessarily work as well as it could.

As an enthusiast photographer with limited lens-buying resources, one of the things that has always irritated me is seeing camera companies produce high-end lenses for their full-frame customers and carefully marketing the idea that this benefits all their users, so they need not develop anything good for their APS-C users. It’s a situation that leaves APS-C users with poor choices and the arguably false impression that by buying these poorly-suited lenses, they’re making progress along an upgrade path (a fallacy that benefits the camera makers more than the photographers).

The decision to adopt a new mount or continue with a legacy one risks the same thing: the appearance of lots of choice when what you’re actually being offered is compromise, and a situation with limited incentive for the manufacturers to dedicate their efforts towards the needs of their mirrorless users. Instead they can produce a lovely picture of their mirrorless camera flanked with 30 years’ worth of lens development and watch as brand loyalists insist that ‘their’ system has the most lenses, regardless of performance.

And this wouldn’t necessarily only apply to existing lenses. Let’s say Manufacturer X needs to develop a new fast 70-200mm F2.8 and the focusing design that would work best for mirrorless turns out to be slower than the one that suits the company’s flagship sports DSLR, which version of the lens do you think we’d see?

Precedent

There is something of a precedent for this. Canon got its reputation badly burned by abandoning its FD mount – something it took some photographers a long time to forgive –whereas Nikon and Pentax pressed on with progressively trying to modernize their 1950s and 70s film mounts.

Taking the hard decision arguably left Canon in the better position: the long-term benefit was a wide-throated, all-electronic mount. With the introduction of its latest ‘E’ lenses, Nikon’s venerable F-mount has finally caught up: with autofocus and aperture operated by the lens, but with a complex series of compatibility issues cropping up along the way. And, while they are still using a somewhat restrictively narrow mount at the end of it, they've benefited from not having to burn their users on the way (though they arguably handed-off responsibility for understanding the complexities of the F-mount’s development to every user looking to buy lenses).

So what’s the alternative?

Olympus expressly made the E-M1 to provide continued support for its legacy system but also developed the 'PRO' range of high-end lenses to make full use of the capabilities of Micro Four Thirds cameras.

The other way of doing things is to develop a dedicated mount and dedicatedly support it. This is the approach that Olympus took with the development of Micro Four Thirds and, to an extent, which Canon has with its EF-M mount. Olympus, along with Panasonic, took the brave step of designing a mirrorless-optimized mount when they developed Micro Four Thirds, rather than trying to press on with Four Thirds. They then offered an adapter to use the older lenses and, with the E-M1 and E-M1 II, developed cameras expressly with the intention of maintaining support for the older, outgoing system. This meant existing customers didn’t get too badly burned and new Micro Four Thirds customers got an increasingly impressive range of native lenses designed for them.

It’ll be interesting to see if Sony takes any pointers from this, as they decide how to support both E and A mounts.

I hope to be proven wrong

Perhaps I’ll be proved wrong in the end. Maybe Canon’s EF-M/EF cross-compatibility will end up reducing the incentives to develop interesting lenses for M series owners, in the same way that I worry sharing a mount would. Equally, perhaps Canon’s Dual Pixel AF (and Nikon’s on-sensor PDAF experience gleaned from its 1-Series cameras) will mean that there ends up being no AF compromise to sharing a mount. It may partly be overcoming this challenge that has led to its camera taking so long to arrive. At which point, using the existing mount would just mean carrying around a camera that’s a little lumpier than it needs to be.

Time, I’m sure, will tell. But, in the meantime, don’t necessarily take at face-value any promises that backwards compatibility is an unalloyed user benefit.

Comments

Thank you for the excellent information on the differences between native mirrorless lenses and legacy lenses. I;ve also found the article on lensrental's teardown of Sony AF voice-coil lens actuators to be remarkable technology - now i know why they went to that extreme.

I do find it ironic that for all the criticism of Sony, their model of designing a new mirrorless e-mount, and then enabling a-mount lenses via a smart adapter is very likely the one that Canon and Nikon will likely use.

I wonder whether Nikon will skip the move to mirrorless entirely. Considering the investment they would need to make, they may decide to wait until further photographic technology is developed that eliminates interchangeable lenses entirely - don't know what they would be at the moment :-)

Lesson from history. When Canon came out with the EOS system in the late 1980's they started with a clean sheet for design but continued to support their A1 mechanical SLR. Nikon who dominated the market at the time tried to adapt their mechanical lenses to their new auto focus/ auto exposure cameras. It was an understandable decision, but in the long run it was devastating to Nikon. Will Nikon and Canon learn from the past or repeat the mistake?

Nikon could have supported their old lenses while including their focus motors in the lenses for the new cameras. They do that now. They didn't do that back in the days when they made the short-sighted decision to put the focus motor in the body of the camera instead of the lens. They have learned from their mistakes. It did indeed seem like a good, efficient decision at the time, I'm sure. It was NOT their decision to maintain backward compatibility that caused Canon to push ahead. In fact, in the 90s Nikon was beating Canon. It was full-frame digital that caused Canon to pull ahead, and for some reason Nikon stupidly waited forever to make anything more than an APS-C sensor camera, until they finally made the D3, which was the game changer (along with that new 14-24mm f2.8 G lens), allowing Nikon to get to where they are today. Sure, there were other things both companies did to bring them to where they are. Imagine if Canon had never made the 5 D?

So far, we haven't seen a DSLR that allows OVF and EVF through the same viewfinder (like the Fuji XPro).The Sigma sd Quattro and sd Quattro H cameras use the full-size Sigma SA-mount, so that owners of any Sigma lenses can just simply use them without hassle. No leaky fiddly adapters. No fumbling in the field.The K-01 would have done much better if it had an EVF. I believe this is the reason it did not sell well. Any Pentax lens fit and worked, no adapter needed.The Sigma mirrorless offering is also big, plenty big enough to get a good grip on it for using the big lenses. Maybe too big for lots of people. This is not a small-body mirrorless.The Sigma mirrorless body is the perfect platform to use to develop a "fix" for the PDAF/CDAF dilemma. And, they are continually upgrading the firmware to autofocus better with their existing line of Art lenses. Sure, the Sigma sensor leaves much to be desired, but they've put it into a practical mirrorless body.

An important point that the article does not address is how the legion of photographers who firmly believe that OVF is superior to EVF will accept the DSLR-mirrorless transition. They will certainly feel betrayed and will have a hard time adapting to the mirrorless concept. Take the case of Leica, who has never been able to make a successful transition from rangefinder to SLR. Leica lost the professional market and became a niche manufacturer. Canon and Nikon may be going the same way.

There won't be any "betrayal" non-sense. Canon/Nikon will continue to sell DSLRs. Mirrorless is simply an additional option that sets them up for the future. And by then, all these "legions" of photographers who supposedly still feel that OVF is superior to EVF will probably be very old, or dead, or finally see the advantages of EVF! You also have to understand that an entire generation of people are growing up without the same nostalgic adoration of OVF. They are growing up looking at digital screens that offer a wealth of information and dynamic feedback. For the younger generation, OVFs may seem a bit primitive. That's how I already feel when I go back to using my DSLR OVF. I miss not having real-time exposure feedback, not being able to see the scene at shooting aperture (real time DOF preview, which is how mirrorless works), etc. I also like my EVF set to black-and-white mode because it helps me with composition to see the world a bit more abstractly. Can't do that with OVF!

My point is that Canon/Nikon aren't going to simply kill off their DSLRs all of a sudden. Mirrorless cameras and DSLR cameras will co-exist for quite some time. Canon introduced their APS-C EOS M system. They didn't kill off their APS-C DSLRs! Likewise, when Canon introduces their FF mirrorless system, it'll exist right alongside Canon's FF DSLRs. People will be able to choose for themselves which to use, or even to use both. People who prefer OVF can just stick to their DSLRs. People who like what EVF technology offers can get a mirrorless camera. Where is the "betrayal".

BTW, don't talk to Canon about "betrayal". After all, they were the company that killed off their entire FD SLR system when they switched to EOS. Now THAT was a betrayal! Or at least a lot of their FD user base certainly thought so. But it happened, and that's just business. You can't take it personally.

A lot of photographers will own dslr and mirrorless bodies simultaneously as many already do since they both have their own list of pros and cons. Having one lens system that works well in both types of bodies makes this even easier. After all if you like gear why shut the door to one type because of ideology.

APS-C, not full frame, represents the sweet spot for mirrorless ILC design economies and sales to mass market consumers. The FF enthusiast and pro user markets are far smaller as a percentage of ILC sales and are not likely to ever generate enough sales volume on their own to entice established players, like Canon and Nikon, into abandoning their highly successful FF products just to appease less than a handful of techno-nerds.

Just like Fujifilm and Sony, Canon knows where the profits are to be made, and it ain't in FF mirrorless. If it was, then Sony's market share would be growing instead of Canon's. 😎

Moving forward, the big issue for FF DSLR manufacturers is manufacturing cost. MILCs have far fewer components, far less complexity to manufacture, meaning lower manufacturing costs. All technology is moving towards less mechanical, fewer parts, more solid state. That's exactly what mirrorless is. In the long run, even Canon and Nikon know they need to be in mirrorless, APS-C and FF. Consider the DSLR mirror mechanism alone:https://goo.gl/ysrTKZEach one of these pieces has a cost associated with it: material cost, machine cost, labor cost, time cost. In MILCs, the cost for this is zero. Consider that a MILC doesn't need separate AF module, metering module, AF point display, focusing screens, primary mirror, secondary mirror, etc. https://goo.gl/hNifM5https://goo.gl/HSjnR6In the long run, mirrorless is going to be a far more efficient, lower-cost product to manufacture, which is even more important for lower-volume "far smaller as a percentage of ILC sales" products.

@Donnie G - You have to keep in mind that the Sony FF mirrorless system is extremely young. Sony FF mirrorless was only introduced in Oct 2013, less than 5 years ago. But what's even more significant is the lack of key lenses until extremely recently. They didn't have a 24-70/2.8 until Feb 2016. They didn't offer a 70-200/2.8 until Sept 2016. They didn't have a 16-35/2.8 until this month. They really needed this FF holy trinity: 16-35, 24-70, 70-200 f/2.8, and those only came recently. Same with the 12-24/4, announced this month. So obviously, Sony FF sales would reflect the lack of these key lenses. Also, the flagship A9 didn't exist until last month. THAT is how new this system is! So I think it's a bit foolish to be so dismissive of Sony FF just now. But then again, people like you (on the Nikon side) were extremely dismissive of Canon when they launched the EOS system in 1987, dismissing it as too young, lacking in lenses, full of gimmicky new and untested technology, etc.

@T3,So now you're saying that Sony no longer has any excuses for flat mirrorless sales since they now have all of the tools in place to generate positive sales momentum and marketshare growth, right? Or, are you simply trying to deflect away from the fact that nothing Sony has done has threatened Canon's dominance in ILCs in any way, shape or form?

Well, it'll be interesting to see if the full year sales for 2017 agrees with your theory. I'm willing to wait and see if Canon can dominate in the mirrorless ILC space without ever resorting to doing a FF mirrorless model. Are you? In any case, let the games begin. 😎

@Donnie G, T3 is very confused about this discussion he seems to think that it is about mirrorless V dslr when in effect it about the lens mount, all through various posts he constantly compares weighs and mechanisms between dslr and mirrorless bodies totaly ignoring that it is about new full frame mirrorless Nikon or Canon bodies which will be a totally new design, and comparing the smaller size he is obviously used to with his little Sony dx body to larger full frame lenses.

@Donnie G - Go back to the late 1980's/early 1990's when Canon EOS was still developing. People like yourself said, "Ha! Canon is going nowhere with EOS! They aren't gaining much marketshare! They'll never make a dent in Nikon's overwhelming dominance!" Well, it was really because Canon was still building the system. These things take time. The same thing is happening with Sony now. Back then, Canon's approach was: new higher tech cameras at lower cost. That's exactly what Sony is doing. Sony A9 is only $4500, compared to Canon 1DXII at $6000 and Nikon D5 at $6500. It's as if Sony is following Canon's playbook. All of you can dismiss Sony all you want (just like people did with Canon in the early 1990s), but I think it would be foolish.

Take it from an impartial photo industry insider, like Sigma CEO Kazuto Yamaki, who in 2015 said, “Sony has a sensor technology. To us, it is very clear that Sony will be the major player in the photo industry. Because they have sensor technology.”

@Donnie G-"I also believe that Canon's EOS-M cameras will outsell Sony's entire mirrorless product line this year and make Canon the top mirrorless manufacturer despite their lack of a FF mirrorless product."I think that's a bit optimistic. Look at Amazon's "Best Sellers in Mirrorless Cameras" rankings: https://goo.gl/kAvO0M. Lots of Sony mirrorless there. Sony takes up 11 of the top 12 sales positions in mirrorless at Amazon. The top selling Canon is EOS M5, currently at #39. The M5 is being outsold by the Sony A9 (#8), A7RII (#9) and A7SII (#10), which are FF bodies selling at a much higher price than the M5. The low-priced EOS M still sells well in some parts of the world, particularly Japan. But that's hardly a high profit product, and buyers of those cameras are mostly young Japanese females who won't be investing much in the system. Selling a lot of A9 and A7 bodies to serious users who invest in the system is going to be a lot more lucrative than selling EOS M's at low margin.

@Donnie G - Yes, I think they probably can for the time being, but not to the extent that they used to. Ultimately, FF mirrorless is going to be a lot more cost effective due to lower manufacturing costs. And as a new generation of photogs comes to maturity, they aren't going to have the same love for big, bulky DSLRs and OVFs that the previous generation did. That's probably what you aren't able to see. You think that every photographer is going to be just like you. But I can tell you that younger photographer growing up in the digital age-- not the analog age-- are MUCH more receptive to mirrorless technology. For them, looking at dynamic digital screens that offer a wealth of features, information, and technology is the norm. It's this future generation of photographers that is up for grabs. Oldsters like you who grew up in the analog and mechanical age should just stick to DSLRs until your dying days. That's fine. But as I said, it's really about the future generation of photogs.

@T3,Now that we're finally in agreement that Canon doesn't need to offer a FF mirrorless camera to remain competitive within the ILC market, let's work on your theory about OVFs being completely displaced by EVFs. In your future world, all photographers will have only one viewfinder available to them, EVFs. No other choices wanted or needed, right? Well, I disagree.

I think that EVFs and OVFs will coexist together long after you, I or even our children are dead because people like having a choice. Cameras with and without mirror boxes will coexist for that same reason. I don't ever envision a day when camera companies don't offer choices to their customers. Will every camera company offer the exact same choices as its competitor? No!

Canon should be as different from Sony as Sony is different from Olympus who is different from Fujifilm, etc. Mirrorless designs aren't better than DSLRs, just different. Choose what you like, but don't choose for me or anybody else. 😎

@Donnie G - "Now that we're finally in agreement that Canon doesn't need to offer a FF mirrorless camera to remain competitive within the ILC market,"That's short term thinking, Donnie. I said they'd be fine "for the time being."

"In your future world, all photographers will have only one viewfinder available to them, EVFs. No other choices wanted or needed, right?"I didn't say that either. DSLRs will always be around, but more as a niche for those who still demand OVF. It's like vinyl records and turntables. Those are still around, even in our digital media world, for those who demand vinyl! Heck, even film and film bodies are still available!https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/15-film-cameras-you-can-still-buy-brand-newI've even told people that if they like bulkier bodies, flipping mirrors, and OVFs, then they should just stick to DSLRs, because they'll be still around! So stop with the foolish paranoia of "No other choices" non-sense.

As someone that was burned by Canon when they dropped the FD line ( I had 18 lens and 6 bodies, including 500 4.5, 400 2.8 and an Olympus 250 f2 I converted to FD) I can't imagine Canon would go that route again. I stuck with them, but did not switch to EOS until the AF was able to outperform me. Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm and others all have the advantage of a clean piece of paper to design with. Of all those companies. I use the EOS M series, the 3 & 5, for about 75% of my work. But, I use Rokinon and other third party lenses in the native mount, and a few FD lenses. Manual focus using focus peaking. The reason I like mirrorless is multifold, but the reduction in size and weight is a BIG factor (pun intensional). The only EF lens I use is the 50 1.8 STM because of size. Canon and Nikon are at serious disadvantage, and if they don't make the right move, it could be expensive. Look how long it took Nikon to catch Canon's AF. Look at the sideline of all major sporting events...

I don't know if there were technical reasons for the shift from FD to EF. One could say that in "very early days" Canon was not serious promoting the shutter priority automatic vs. Minolta. Because for photography aperture priority is more important (it's ok to have both modes). But the market rewarded them.

Sony A7/9 body is too small with large lens on it, and the lens is not smaller than Canon's.If Canon can make the body the size of Panasonic GH4, and be able to use all the existing EF lenses. I will be happy.

Canon buys Panasonic's whole camera dept. and fuses DualPixel and DepthFromDefocus technologies ending the AF story with one bold move.

Nikon, unable to compete, proposes Canon buyout so we finally end up with Canikon, more video oriented Sony and the odd Fuji major sales stakes while phones finally catch up in 20 years time for most tasks photographic and the earth carries on rotating as ever before.

I will suggest a radical point of view. In the history of technologies, a new technology tends to resemble its predecessor. Examples are the first gas cook stoves looked like wood cook stoves. The first cars looked like carriages....many other examples historically abound. When digital started, the top end technology was (with a few Leica exceptions) the SLR. So, that naturally is where almost all of the top end digital cameras were. Also, the viewing screens were not so good for quite a while, so optical through the lens viewing made the most sense. Now, as the screens are highly developed and improving all the time, I suspect that the SLR is going to gradually atrophy in its place in the camera world, being replaced by mirrorless, with its obvious size advantages, among many others. They may even disappear, as the focusing gets better and better with mirrorless, and the ability to compose exactly what you will get on the screen.

1. Sonys linear piezoelectric actuators is not so much about CDAF/PDAF, but battery. It doesn't waste lots of energy on rotation motion. This is a coming technology to DSLR lenses as well.

2. On sensor PDAF will never be as good as dedicated PDAF sensor because of pixel size. On sensor PDAF cant be much larger then 2x2 pixels before it takes away to much information from the image. Having many PDAF-pixels will increase image noise because they block out some of the light.

3. Pentax K-01 had slow AF, partly because of a weak built in motor, but sales failed in Europe and USA because of a different reason: design. In Asia it sold well.

4. One way to accept both a short depth and old lenses is to have a good mount adapter. Yet another way is to allow the rear lens elements to retract into the camera. Pentax had a wide angle lens prototype that used the space inside K-01.

"Pentax had a wide angle lens prototype that used the space inside K-01."

Why didn't it move forward beyond prototype? Most likely because these "into-the-body" lens designs don't work that well. Think of how small those rear elements have to be to squeeze into the mirror-box cavity, which is pretty small! It's a very difficult design task, compromised by the tiny space restrictions of a mirror box. You're literally and figuratively trying to stick a round peg into a square hole. Very compromised situation, physically and optically! That's why I think the "into-the-body" lens idea is a non-starter.

@simenO1- "On sensor PDAF will never be as good as dedicated PDAF sensor because of pixel size"

ospdaf is already better than dslr pdaf, for several reasons, including far more pdaf sensors, spread across the entire image plane, instead of being clustered in the center, no focusing blackout from the stupid mirror flapping around, etc.

"2. On sensor PDAF will never be as good as dedicated PDAF sensor because of pixel size. " Wrong with Dual pixel AF. With dual pixel AF, the amount of light used for AF is even higher than using a viewfinder, because in the latter, part of the light goes to the viewfinder and part to the PDAF sensor.

It's inevitable but mirrorless is not necessarily better, it's just a different option. I now have a 5D4 and an 80D and in spite of what Richard Butler writes, in live view their dual pixel auto focus is extremely good. LV autofocus with the 5D4 is even better than the pentaprism autofocus in low light. Similarly with the 80D. And the pentaprism auto focus is VERY VERY good. Just remove the mirror add an electronic VF and presto it's mirrorless. My pick is Canon will make the EF mount native for FF mirrorless. But without the mirror there is also room in the mount for extreme wide angle lenses to protude into the body. Just as Canon has a EF-S mount for APSC lenses they could have say a "EF-Z" mount for a mirrorless FF which would prevent special WA mirrorless lenses being used on a camera with a mirror but still fitting their mirrorless FF. As far as mirrorless weight saving, there won't be much difference in it by the time lenses and perhaps a desirable 2 battery grip are fitted.

Third party lenses would probably have to be designed exclusively for EF-Z, as the physical structure is too different from other mounts. This would be a serious blow to Sigma, Tamron and friends, as they typically design a lens once and then adapt it to various mounts. It may mean that Canon mirrorless gets third-party lenses late, or not at all; or that third parties continue to focus on lenses with DSLR flange lengths (which can be readily adapted to mirrorless mounts), damaging other mounts' user experiences. Either way we lose.

It's quite possible that Canon will use the EF-M mount for FF mirrorless. After all, the dimensions of the EF-M mount are very similar to the dimensions of the Sony E mount (which apparently works fine for FF).

As you say it is rumours that both Canon and Nikon will announce a full-frame mirrorless body next year. What is not clear is if this is simply a gap filler OR a genuine alternative for an existing pro-body DSLR.

You say "There's a risk of building a system that prioritizes backward compatibility over maximizing performance" -- implying that if the new body was directly compatible with the existing Nikon F-Mount Lenses Or Canon equivalent then there would be a loss of performance -- which is complete trash. Your article reads as though size/weight are performance factors - well they are notYour final comment "don’t necessarily take at face-value any promises that backwards compatibility is an unalloyed user benefit" - is patently WRONG for anyone with a bunch of top spec F-mount lenses - it is patently a benefit to be able to use these without a adapter. Stop whining - Size / Weight are 2 factors out of hundreds and not the most important.

T3 -- I am sorry that you are so keen to dismiss the needs of those like me who have invested over $45,000 in F-mount lenses in the last 3 years to be able to take the best shots possible in our respective fields. Adapters create another weakness and opportunity for weather to intrude.

I don't care about 1-system or the recently canceled DL. These systems are simply not for me or any other serious pro, except perhaps as a cheap walk around - and there are better cameras than these. The EOS M is also not a serious pros body either.

Nikon chose to cancel its last mirrorless range because it thought it would not be profitable -- why would you want Nikon to go back on this decision? Just go a get a Sony or Fujifilm or Olympus -- if you want light small bodies and very limited lens ranges.

As I said before, if you want to use DSLR lenses without an adapter, then just use a DSLR! No one is making you go mirrorless. But when Canon and Nikon offer FF mirrorless, yes, they will have their own lenses specifically made for mirrorless, and with a short flange distance. Canon and Nikon have already done it with their mirrorless systems (Canon with their APS-C mirrorless, and Nikon with their CX mirrorless). And you'll use adapters if you want to use DSLR lenses. That's what Canon and Nikon are ALREADY doing. The cat's already out of the bag.

For someone who has bought $45K worth of F-mount lenses in the last 3 yrs and who absolutely REFUSES to use an adapter, just stick to using F-mount DSLRs that these lenses are made for! But your situation is NOT the norm. Most people buying into mirrorless will choose native mirrorless lenses, or will be fine using an adapter for the few DSLR lenses that they retain.

And, no, Canon and Nikon are not dismissing people like yourself who have invested heavily in DSLR lenses. That's why they make these OEM adapters! It's not really their fault that you refuse to use their adapter. So it's really you who is dismissing them.

I have given my reason for not wanting to use adaptors on pro-bodies. My norm is for Pro-shooters who make money from selling their images. NOT the bulk of amateurs even the most enthusiastic.

If Nikon just make the Nikon 1 bigger -- a FF version -- then good luck to you all - because it is not remotely useable for my purposes. However, since Nikon cancelled the DL range - I would be surprised it this is what they will do.

There is a possibility of Nikon coming up with a mirrorless DSLR, without an OVF, but with a EVF AND it is Nikon will need to decide who it wishes to please -- ie the "profitable" market for this body.

I note that you do not declare what gear you use and the only 2 shots you have included in your gallery were shot with a crappy Sony A6000. So what do you know - just being a troll helps no-one. Your now on my ignored list - even though I agreed with your comment re actual photographers.

@agrumpyoldsod - You seem to be forgetting that DSLRs are still going to be around. Why the obsession over putting all your $45K of F-mount lenses on a mirrorless body?!?! LOL. Just stick to F-mount DSLRs! DSLRs aren't going away! And, again, Nikon, Sony, Canon all make adapters to accommodate users who want to use their DSLR lenses on their mirrorless bodies. It's not their fault that you refuse to use this option that they have provided. There are plenty of Nikon 1-series users who have no problem using their DSLR lenses on 1-series bodies. It works great. Likewise, the same will be true when Nikon rolls out their FF mirrorless bodies. You really are an outlier. Companies can't really waste their time trying to please every outlier customer.

@agrumpyoldsodYou dismiss an article by the senior reviewer of this site as 'trash' and 'whining', describe the A6000 - one of the best cameras of recent times as 'crappy' and claim that Sony, Olympus and Fuji have 'very limited lens ranges' and you think someone else is a troll?

Why are people assuming that full frame mirrorless lenses are smaller. Simply look at the specs on Sony Nikon and Canon comparable lenses in most cases there is little difference in size, Sony has few wide angle primes, the smallest is the 35mm f2.8 which is only a few mm smaller than Nikons faster 35mm f2D lens, weight differences can be down to the construction and materials used, less material more plastic can account for this.

I own both Sony mirrorless (A7ii) and Nikon systems. Yes the Sony body is smaller and the lenses can be, but the problem is that there is a line when the body-lens size ratio starts to become a handling problem for the Sony. Using a large lens like the 24-70 or 70-200 becomes a very awkward experience, and you long for a larger chunky body to grip. Put a really long lens like a 300 f2.8, Nd you won't care a jot for the smaller body :).

The thing I like about the Sony is that you CAN have a very compact system if you want - you stick with the smaller primes,

"Using a large lens like the 24-70 or 70-200 becomes a very awkward experience"

Use proper handholding technique. Support the big lens with your left hand. I've used a Canon 100-400L IS and 70-200/2.8L IS with an EOS M, believe it or not. That's an awkward experience mainly because the EOS M has practically no grip at all! But with a bit of a grip, it's not an issue. If you support the lens properly, your right hand shouldn't be doing any more work than if you were using a smaller lens.

Just imagine a Nikon 200/2 VR on a tiny Nikon V1 mirrorless body (which also has no grip)! :

Yes, its doable if you properly support the lens with your left hand. Notice that he's not needing any kind of death grip hold on the tiny V1 body. Sure, a molded grip would definitely be nicer. But you don't really need a huge, chunky grip because, as I said before, if you support your lens properly, your right hand shouldn't be doing any more work than with a smaller lens.

@T3 but the sizes of the lenses are all very similar, this is the point, you are not getting small full frame lenses which is the biggest claim of a smaller registration distance, compare a 17-35 f2.8 Nikon to the Sony 16-35 f2.8, not exactly the same focal range but close, Nikon is 82.5x106mm and 745g, the sony 89x122g and 680g they are very similar the Sony is bigger but slightly lighter. Differences are coming down to the types of materials used in the construction of the lenses and the optics. You can cherry pick different combinations of lenses and bodies to prove points but overall there is little difference, if you use a adaptor you need to add between 100 and 250 grams to the pairing

@cosmicnode- Sony 16-35/2.8 is still lighter than Nikon 17-35/2.8. But you also have to consider OVERALL body+lens size and weight! After all, no one uses a lens all by itself. In spite of the Sony 16-35/2.8 being slightly larger in size than the Nikon 17-35/2.8, you still get an overall smaller and lighter body+lens combo with mirrorless. Please view comparison from top and front:https://goo.gl/VfDA4ZEven when lenses are heavier and larger, overall size/weight advantage still goes to mirrorless. Eg., Nikon 85mm (350g) vs Sony 85mm (371g), but overall is 1190g (Nikon) vs 996g (Sony), and Sony combo is a lot smaller. Sony combo is even smaller than Nikon 85mm on D5300 (APS-C) body!https://goo.gl/pND5UI

Also consider the Sony set-up includes IS, which is lacking from the Nikons. Overall FF wt is less too: 1305g for Sony, vs 1585g for Nikon. 270g may not seem like much, but when you travel with multiple bodies/lenses, they do add up! But even without wt, smaller/compact size is nice.

The lens is still smaller, that is the point I am making , Nikon bodies are larger and far better ergonomically, that is worth the exra weight for many of us. IS is not solely a mirrorless feature, pentax also has it, if you talk of a new body this can be included . The discussion is about the flange registration distance not the weight of the current dslr body that will be irrelevant for a new mirrorless Nikon, when Nikon or Canon produce a ff mirrorless body the weight of the heavy pentaprism and the mirror plus mechanism will be gone, body weights have no relevance to this discussion obviously they will change.

@cosmicnode- I also think it's really hard to gauge the size benefit from these pictures alone. You gotta really see and use them in real life. I've been traveling with mirrorless for some times now. I just got back from a week in Taiwan with Sony mirrorless. I've also been to Dubai, India, Sri Lanka, Myanmar, Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore with mirrorless. All these places are very hot/humid, so carrying any extra weight is NOT fun. Plus, smaller size of camera gear takes up less space in your camera bag, and is a lot less obvious/intimidating when it's not in your camera bag. They draw less attention than a big DSLR. I currently use Sony A6000, which looks more like a large compact than an APS-C ILC. As for FF, Sony FF mirrorless is similar in size to a compact APS-C DSLR. Overall, it's just easier and nicer for day-to-day carrying: less obtrusive, less cumbersome, you feel like you can take them anywhere, and they don't stick out like a sore thumb like big DSLRs. Just my experience.

@cosmicnode - when Canon and Nikon roll out FF mirrorless, I think we'll see smaller/lighter FF mirrorless lenses compared to their FF DSLR lens counterparts. Just look at what Canon is doing with their APS-C mirrorless lenses. Across the board, Canon's EF-M lenses are smaller/lighter than their EF-S counterparts, in spite of generally being made of better materials (more metal exteriors).http://camerasize.com/compact/#684.608,598.545,ha,t

Likewise, I think Canon will achieve similar size/weight advantages when they offer FF mirrorless lenses. But again, you also need to look at overall body+lens size and weight, because no one uses a lens all by itself. In spite of an EOS M5 being spec'd similar to an 80D, it's still a lot more compact than a Rebel T6i!

If you like big bodies, definitely stick to DSLRs! But not all of us find big bodies necessary, or more enjoyable to carry around all day. That's why mirrorless is great: it gives us an alternative to the status quo DSLR.

@T3 the mirrless you are using being a crop factor is smaller and I understand that the body is smalle4 and so are the crop lenses but the full frame lenses are not smaller , as you know the 85mm Sony and Nikon lenses are very similar, anew Nikon body could be the same size as a Sony A7 or A9, still with the F mount, 20mm will not make a huge difference int the overall volume of your kit, looking at Sony, Nikon and Canon current lenses there are pehaps only 2 new ones which may be smaller and they would be 20mm and 24mm , 28? Should Canon and Nikon change their entire range of lenses for only that

@cosmicnode - Nikon's smaller FF DSLR, the Nikon Df, is still a lot larger and chunkier than any FF mirrorless body. Canon's smallest FF DSLR is also a lot larger, too. I don't see FF DSLRs getting much smaller any time soon.

DSLR components just take up a lot of room! It's not just the sensor. For example, on each side of the reflex mirror, DSLRs have big motors to drive the mirror. They take up as much space as the mirror itself:https://goo.gl/eSyJHdMirrorless don't need this, which means smaller cameras, lower production cost.

"Should Canon and Nikon change their entire range of lenses for only that"-- No, Canon and Nikon will not "change their entire range of lenses". Mirrorless is simply a new range of lenses for a new type of camera body. And they're *already* doing it. Nikon has 13 mirrorless lenses for their Nikon 1 system!https://goo.gl/kp6N3LCanon has 7 mirrorless lenses for their EOS M system! Not replacements. Just new products to sell.

Why do you keep comparing slr bodies to mirrorless, the article is about FF mirrorless do we Keep the F mount or a new mount, you seem to be stuck in the argument which is better a evf or optical viewfinder,

Well perhaps we are straying into the area of personal opinion, but I really dislike the handling experience of a large lens on small body. In my opinion past a certain point the size/weight advantage of mirrorless full frame becomes meaningless.

@Tim O'Connor - Sure, if you put a big heavy lens on a camera, then they whole rig becomes big and heavy. But for me, saving weight is still saving weight. If you save a few hundred grams on the body, that savings still exists. A 1DXII weighs 1530g. An A9 weighs 673g. That 857g savings doesn't just "disappear" just because you put big lenses on both bodies. Gravity doesn't just go on vacation just because you use a big lens. And you'll still have nearly three times the body size and volume taking up space in your camera bag.http://camerasize.com/compact/#655,713,ha,fThe nice thing about mirrorless size is that when you take off that big lens and replace it with a small lens, then you have a small camera. With a 1DXII, put on a small lens and you still have a big camera!

There are obviously people who love really big cameras. Those people should stick with DSLRs. It's like cars. Some people love really big cars. They want to drive jack-up trucks. Some don't.

@T3 The critical question is how much weight are you saving, and does it lead to an improvement in the shooting experience? You can pick extremes like the 1Dx or D5, but that is not what I would ever shoot with - I prefer the D500 or 7D, because they fit my hand nicely, and I don't need the OTT build quality. Jared Polin or Matt Granger would not agree with me :)

The question is what you are shooting? that will determine what matters to you. A street shooter or travel shooter will have different desires to a wildlife or sports shooter, and as a keen bird photographer I want a D500 or 7D size body. I could definitely handle less weight in the body, but the size is important for me, because it just handles better, and is more enjoyable.

@Tim O'Connor - Yes, there will always be variety in camera size. But even APS-C bodies of D500 or 7D-size and weight are becoming somewhat of a niche in terms of popularity. On Amazon's "Best Sellers in Mirrorless" listings, the 7D MKII is #85 in sales ranking. In comparison, a comparable APS-C Sony A6500 is #21. For specialized use, bigger bodies may still be preferred by some users. But I do think that's becoming more of a niche pool, whereas in the past a body the size/weight of a 7D MKII would have been more the norm. It's like big laptops vs small laptops. 17" laptops used to be fairly common. Apple used to sell a 17" MacBook. But customer attitudes changed, and Apple discontinued their 17" laptops. Today, 17" laptops are a niche. Same goes for video cams. Big video cams are a specialized niche too. So you are right, bird photography (which is also a niche) may still want large bodies. But outside these niches, I think everything is going smaller.

I don't see any advantage in a small size camera like the A7 lineup, which are just not comfortable to use or hold. I can agree on weight, but not on size - if it's not comfortable to use, there is no point.

@Mollyran - Comfort is relative and subjective. Personally I find big DSLRs uncomfortable. I find them overly large. I am a long-time Canon DSLR user. But I also use mirrorless. I can carry and shoot mirrorless all day, and it feels more comfortable than lugging around my big DSLR.

I think the current generation of users that is used to having huge DSLRs has become accustomed to it because that's what they've always used. But the younger generation isn't going to have this hang-up. Nevertheless, if you like big cameras, just stick to DSLRs. They aren't going away.

People have the erroneous belief that all you need to do is replace the APS-C sensor in the SL1 with a FF sensor, and you'll get the same sized camera! That's not true. The only way the SL1 is as small as it is is because it uses APS-C sized components. That includes the APS-C sized sensor, mirror, mirror mechanism, mirror box, focusing screen, optical viewfinder, shutter, etc. Enlarging all of these things to FF size pushes everything outward, displacing more internal camera space, resulting a larger camera. So it's not just about putting a FF sensor in the same location as the APS-C sensor. There are a lot of other components and dimensions that need to be proportionally enlarged.

The SL1 is the world's smallest DSLR, and that is only made possible because it's an APS-C camera, and by paring everything down as much as possible. They might get a FF camera down to the size of an 80D. But don't be expecting one as small as the SL1, hahaha!

@TonyPM - Yes, the only way you'd get FF done to SL1 size is buy NOT making it a DSLR. It'd have to be full mirrorless. You'd have to dump all the space-hogging components that a DSLR requires. Look at how small a Canon EOS M5 is, compared to a Rebel SL1, even though it has the specs of an 80D! That's how small you can make these cameras when you ditch all those components that are required in a DSLR.http://camerasize.com/compact/#684,660,ha,t

But forget about a FF camera the size of an SL1 if you still want it to be a DSLR. It'd have to be a true mirrorless camera. And if that's the case, it's not going to be an "SL2". It's going to be a totally different camera and model series. It'll be Canon's FF mirrorless body, and it'll be a big deal! An SL2 will probably eventually come out. But like every Rebel upgrade, it'll be just a tweaked version of the prior model-- nothing drastic, like changing it to a FF mirrorless camera!

One interesting thing is that I clearly recall that ten years ago in the forums there were often "full frame is dead" discussions.

At that time, it wasn't clear what the future would be. But now, ten years later, it is clear, full frame is not dead. Medium format may even have a future. But at the least, full frame is here to stay.

I'm so tired of people touting the size of mirrorless cameras. Yes, with some lenses it can be a smaller system. But not as small and convenient as a phone.

One of main benefits of mirrorless is getting the glass closer to the sensor. The closer the glass is to the sensor, the better the image can be. Why do you think Canon came up with EF-S? At the time their EF-S 17-55 f2.8 was reviewed as one of the sharpest zooms. All from moving the glass a little closer to the sensor. A a crop sensor didn't need a mirror as big as a full frame lens, so they moved the lens' rear element into the body a little more.

Another benefit more important than size is the auto focus on the sensor. No need to worry about front focus, etc. or micro adjust.

I'm sure as the processor speeds improve and battery life improves the mirrorless experience will improve, but lets not kid ourselves about the size. They aren't going to beat the convenience or pocketability of the camera on your phone.

@Kona Mike I think you are mistaken to say that the lens being closer to the sensor makes a blanket improvement to image quality. It's mostly for overall size that moving it closer is desirable.

Think about a projector - when was the last time you saw one cast a perfect image on a screen from half a metre away? You can get them, but they use a mirror, have a limit on size and are very expensive. The same applies here.

That's not to say that getting rid of the viewfinder mirror and moving the back of the lens somewhat closer will make image quality worse, as others have pointed out, rangefinders do this; but as you get very close to the sensor it will make lenses work harder to overcome physics.

You can't hold up one zoom and claim it's solely down to moving the lens closer to the sensor - by that logic all but the cheapest of EF-S lenses would be better than full frame.

Moving lenses closer to the sensor is for size benefit, make no mistake.

The size benefit of mirrorless vs DSLR for amateur or holidaymaker is significant. Especially on the micro 4/3 side. I have really small kidney bag which can fit GM1 with 14-140 mk II lens (28-280 equiv.), or I can take a slightly bigger kidney bag and mount that lens on GX80, as well as I can fit my A7 with either kit lens or some vintage lens into that same bag too. The micro 4/3 benefits most from the size reduction, I wish I have GM5. Nex/Alpha like 3N, 5N, 5000, 5100 with E-Mount pancake are very small size and lightweight for APS-C as well. And all these small mirrorless take better pictures than your smartphone, however pointless this many times is nowadays.

Getting the lens closer to the sensor is not primarily about reducing the size of the lens, albeit this may be a by-product of a particular design. Sensors work at their optimum with light rays which reach the sensor perpendicularly, with as little variation in the angle of incidence from 0 degrees as possible. These lenses are of telecentric design. Sony knew this full well when Zeiss designed the lens for the R1 and in which the rear element is a mere 2mm from the plane of the sensor. Olympus did something similar with their Pro 18-54 lens, although the distance between the rear element and the sensor was far less extreme.

Phones have nothing to do with it; the comparison is made between DSLRs and Mirrorless. Go look up the size/weight of an, for example, any mid-high end u4/3 body with a Panasonic 100-300. That's 200-600 mm equivalent in under 5 lbs that gives amazing image quality.

What does that weight and scale to when going to DSLR? A hefty body and a 100-400 that still doesn't give the same reach. The benefits become larger if you're out in the field all day. Shooting indoors at a sporting event? Doesn't really matter. Walking around outside for 3-4 hours? All those lenses add up to big weight savings and longer reach at the telephoto end.

Not sure why we should care so much about the size of a FF mirrorless with Nikon or Canon. I'm still going to keep a smaller Fuji system (and iPhone). The advantage of mirrorless for the Nikon body would be a much quieter shutter, functionality of an EVF, and maintaining the legacy lenses that don't need AF tweaking. The form factor of a D800 with a 50mm lens is fine, and would be less bulky of course without the prism.

The phone comparison is valid. Everyone points to the size or mirrorless as a major benefit because it makes them more convenient than DSLRs. The point I'm making is that form-factor convenience isn't what mirrorless is all about. By the way, the phone wins in form factor and convenience, so just get over it. Getting the glass close to the sensor is a more important factor. Go read about why Canon came out with EF-S. Why would the leading DSLR maker with the best lens lineup and complete compatibility of all EOS lenses come out with EF-S for crop bodies only? Oh and the 17-55 EF-S lens is far from small.

I would be surprised if Canon didn't make some mirrorless only lenses that get the glass real close to the sensor and achieve some real impressive sharpness.

@Vit Adamek, the article is speculating if Canon will make special lenses for mirrorless. I just pointed out that they made special lenses for crop sensors for optical reasons. I also pointed out that mirrorless fans are always touting the convenience of a slightly smaller form factor but should be touting other features, like getting the glass closer to the sensor.

I really appreciated this discussion. I keep toying with the idea of using an adapter for Nikon lenses for 4/3 bodies - but have had little success even with Novoflex. The "bones" adapters supposedly work well - but it's a pretty big investment and major loss if they don't. Is it possible the business model of Canon and Nikon could be altered just a bit so that they could have a line of 4/3 lenses? What they pay to Oly and Panny could surely be offset by sales. And it might keep some of their engineers and marketers employed. The Tamron/Sigma and others who focus on lenses for multiple cameras have been disappointing in not producing as many as they might for 4/3. At least I'm not the only one who is reluctant to get rid of some fine glass.

i'm not sure why you would need Canon to make M43 lenses, when they don't have a M43 body? Oly and Panasonic make superb dedicated lenses already for this format. Canon has their EF-M mount, but are not supporting it well with dedicated lenses. Or with bodies that have viewfinders AFAIK. The writing is on the wall for SLR's, but Caninkon are stuck with the double-edged sword of their huge range of legacy lenses, which history will relegate to niche status in time.

Why not launch two systems, otherwise identical except for the mount. It'll take many years for them to build up new line of native mount lenses, so release legacy mount version first and then when they have at least 3-4 of the most important lenses ready also relase new mount version. You can use legacy glass with adapter and if you aren't happy with the small lens line-up buy the legacy mount version, it'll be thicker and a few grams heavier but still much lighter than a DSLR. After 4-5 years you can stop making legacy mount version altogether.

The worst thing Canon could do was to start a new Full Frame Mount EF-M lenses. Yet, people are wanting a full frame mirrorless body. Either way, a bullet have to be bitten before Sony eats all the cheeze.

Nikon and Canon could develop a new line of Full frame cameras mirrorless with a strategy similar to what Nikon is doing with new cards, The Nikon D5 is offered in two version one with two XQD and the second with two CF card slots. They could develop two versions of a new mirrorless Full Frame, one version compatible with the current lenses and another with a new type of mount that could be used for new lenses designed to optimize them for a mirrorless body. Is this possible as a solution?

That would be suicide. Without Canon's and Nikon's APS-C sales, and their unit volume would plummet! The bulk of the market simply can't and don't want to spend the extra money for FF. APS-C is still where the bulk of sales are. And if you force Canon and Nikon to sell FF at APS-C prices, that would cause their profit to plummet. Both would be disastrous for revenue and profit. Nope, APS-C is not going away.

As for your comment about "competing lines", listen to Steve Jobs: “If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will.” The iPhone cannibalized iPod sales. The MacBook Pro cannibalized iMac sales. The iPad/iPad Pro cannibalized MacBook sales. Apple has no problem offering products that take a bite out of other products they sell.

Or think of Kodak, who shunned digital (in spite of being an early developer of digital photography) because they didn't want Kodak digital cameras to compete with Kodak film sales! Worst decision ever!

Talks about Jobs and cannibalization is getting a little boring. Cannibalizing cuts both ways, and is deemed successful only when a new product surpass the old. And no one can guarantee such success. There are countless new products that failed to surpass the old, to a point of bringing down what were once successful companies. What would have people said if iPhone didn't take off? Jobs would have been slammed for 'Killing a goose laying golden eggs' or for 'Trying to fix things that weren't broken'.

@taktak91- You don't seem to understand the concept. If the iPhone didn't "take off", then the iPod would have continued on as strong as ever. Likewise, if mirrorless doesn't "take off", then DSLRs will continue on as strong as ever. But the danger of not doing these new products is that someone else will, and you'll be left out in the cold. Re: smartphones, had Apple not done the iPhone for fear of hurting the iPod, they would have been left out of the rise of smartphones that was already beginning. Likewise, if Canon/Nikon don't get into mirrorless for fear of hurting their DSLRs, they have the potential of being left out of the mirrorless rise that is already beginning. Case in point is Kodak, who resisted digital for fear of hurting their film says, resulting in them missing out on the rise of digital that was already beginning. In all these cases, the signs were there. We can all see where things are going. It just depends on how much denial you want to have (eg, Kodak),

s>T3You don't seem to understand either. Had iPhone failed, Apple probably would have gone under, since they would only have iPods to show for.

As I stated earlier, for cannibalization to work, the new product MUST surpass the old. DSLRs are the old product, that's certain. But are mirrorless the new product that will surpass DSLRs? Five years ago, I would have said that mirrorless definitely is the future worth investing in. Now, I'm not that certain. I have a feeling that there will soon be an all new digital device that will make all dedicated cameras obsolete.

>T3And about Kodak. Kodak definitely didn't resist digital. They were forerunners. Early DSLRs were Kodaks, based on Nikon/Canon bodies. Kodak's digital cameras were doing fine until Nikon and Canon started producing DSLRs all on their own. Kodak didn't have (or rather lost) first -hand knowledge in camera body manufacturing, just digital processing units. So when Nikon and Canon (who had first -hand knowledge in camera body manufacturing) acquired know-how on digital processing units as well, Kodak didn't have a chance. Kodak simply cannibalized itself to extinction.

@taktak91 -- "Had iPhone failed, Apple probably would have gone under, since they would only have iPods to show for."

Haha, no. They would have simply not been in the smartphone business. You may not realize this, but Apple make other products: desktop computers, laptops, tablets, watches, etc. Not just iPods. In fact, Steve Jobs didn't even originally intend to make the iPhone; he was planning on making the iPad first! https://goo.gl/0NCnkghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ln9ODWG8zLoSo even without an iPhone, the genius of Jobs would have had plenty of other products in line. Apple would not have "gone under".

As for Kodak, yes, they were early developers of digital. But there was an internal struggle within Kodak: one camp wanted to move forward with digital, the other camp wanted to protect film sales. Ultimately, management chose to protect film. And when they realized that the future was digital, it was too late. They didn't see where technology was headed. Sound familiar?

>T3I know already that Apple makes desktop computers, laptops, tablets, watches, etc. None of them would have accounted for much without the success of iPhone. Had Apple gone ahead with iPad first, instead of iPhone, would they have been successful?

Kodak's decision to 'protect film' and 'didn't see where technology was headed' are only one sided view. Kodak probably knew where digital technology was headed. They just realized that they couldn't be a part of what they had pioneered, so they had to go ahead with what they could do, which was to 'protect film', even though they knew that it will come to an end.

@taktak91- "Kodak probably knew where digital technology was headed. They just realized that they couldn't be a part of what they had pioneered, so they had to go ahead with what they could do, "

Nope, that is not true either. At the time, Kodak had the potential to become the supplier of sensors to the world's digital cameras. They had the technology and expertise to do so. They could have been what Sony is today: the world's largest supplier of imaging sensors. The real issue was that Kodak made the decision to continue to stick to film rather than choosing to move forward with film. Read "The Decision Loom" (https://www.amazon.com/Decision-Loom-Interactive-Decision-Making-Organizations/dp/1908009446) which discusses how Kodak failed. Here's a summary of one (of several) of the pivotal moments where Kodak chose film over digital:

(continued)"In 1989, the Kodak board of directors had a chance to make a course change when Colby Chandler, the CEO, retired. The choices came down to Phil Samper and Kay R. Whitmore. Whitmore represented the traditional film business, where he had moved up the rank for three decades. Samper had a deep appreciation for digital technology. The board chose Whitmore. As the New York Times reported at the time,

'Mr. Whitmore said he would make sure Kodak stayed closer to its core businesses in film and photographic chemicals.'"

That decision, made by the board of directors, sealed Kodak's fate. They ignored the signs, and stuck with film by choosing a "traditional film business" guy to run the company. The message from the board was clear: "protect the film business."

That's the danger of companies being in denial of changes that are afoot, and of protecting their "core business", regardless of the signs of change. In the case of Canon and Nikon, that "core business" is DSLRs.

>That's the danger of companies being in denial of changes that are afoot, and of protecting their "core business", regardless of the signs of change. In the case of Canon and Nikon, that "core business" is DSLRs.

Core business of Canon and Nikon isn't DSLRs (especially for Canon). They're just dominant in DSLR market. And they're not denying changes. They're just carefully (perhaps too carefully) deciding their next strategy, which may be mirrorless, or something different all together.

You keep on insisting that mirrorless is the prime candidate for cannibalizing DSLRs. Mirrorless is already showing signs of becoming 'old tech'. I have a feeling that in a few years, argument of 'DSLRs or mirrorless' will be irrelevant, with ILCs aimed at consumers gone.

What I'm mostly hearing. "People love progress, but few want to explore/embrace change"Do people buy or use a DSLR because:1. The lenses are bigger and heavier.2. The bodies are bulkier and usually heavier3. It's impossible to take great shots with anything other than a DSLR.4. I won't have great lens choices unless I have a Canon or Nikon DSLR body

Canon and Nikon can offer mirrorless bodies that require adaptors and/or the larger legacy lenses. The smaller body size and weight is lost on legacy lens weights plus adapters. They will probably do fine with professionals and rightly so, but how many people have left for the many mirrorless options already? Currently using micro 4/3 and carrying a body and a couple of lenses is weight and size friendly. Plenty of high quality lenses already available too.Canon and Nikon need to compete here and make it good. Counting on your legacy as a strategy doesn't always work out that well. Ask anyone that loved their Blackberry?

Or Nokia, or Windows Mobile, or Kodak film, all of whom owned their markets. It just goes to show that no matter how dominant you are, nothing lasts forever. And companies really need to look at where the road turns up ahead.

The smaller sized mirorless requires bigger lenses than their dslr counter parts. And then you have to get a big adapter. There is no advantage to using a mirrorless. The mirrorless continues to have issues in low light, battery power, sensor shadows and alike. Nikon and Canon made the right call to hold off.

"Hold off" simply means "delay". Also, people seem to forget that Canon and Nikon are ALREADY doing mirrorless. Nikon has their 1 System, which they made 13 lenses and 11 bodies for (J1, J2, J3, J4, J5, V1, V2, V3, S1, S2, AW1)! Their only mistake was choosing a 1" sensor for it.

Canon has their EOS M system, which they have made 6 bodies and 7 lenses for.

Canon and Nikon are already invested in mirrorless. And I would not be surprised if they both have FF mirrorless already in development.

One big advantage of mirrorless, from the manufacturing point of view, is that mirrorless uses far fewer parts and is simpler to manufacture than DSLRs, which means lower cost. Just look at the many parts and complexity that go into a DSLR's mirror mechanism and AF system that are un-needed in a mirrorless camera:https://goo.gl/DMOKTZhttps://goo.gl/ANnYA1

So what this means is that as DSLR volume continues to decline and mirrorless volume steadily gains in popularity, it will be tougher and tougher for DSLR manufacturers to compete on cost. Gone are the days when DSLRs sold in massive volumes, where all DSLRs could benefit from economies of scale to keep costs down. So eventually, there will be a tipping point where even DSLR manufacturers will want to shift consumers over to mirrorless cameras, selling them all new mirrorless bodies (that will be cheaper to produce) and lenses, while still being able to sell them DSLR lenses that can be adapted to mirrorless bodies.

Add to that the death of the compact camera market, which helped subsidize the cost of DSLRs and lenses. That's one of a number of reasons why almost all new camera bodies and lenses are priced markedly higher than many of us are used to. The profits that camera makers used to enjoy from compacts are now gone and can no longer be used to develop new high-end product.

Lot's of photographer use their Canon lenses with an adapter on Sony FE mount cameras. I think they would be very happy using them without an adapter on a Canon mirrorless camera.

Changing the mount system is mostly a way for a manufacturer to sell new lenses. Sony wisely chose to do so because they were outsiders on the market, and also the first to produce Full Frame mirrorless. It was a smart move, they hadn't much to lose, and a lot to win.

Nikon and Canon would be somewhat late now, and they have much more to lose by disappointing their customer base by making their lenses obsolete.

There is a huge difference between an "intelligent" adapter that has to convert Sony camera signal in order to have them understood by a Canon lens, and an adapter from Canon mirrorless to Canon... Such a converter does not need to convert signals... Lenses would not be slower... And by the way Canon ALREADY sells such an adapter... (EF-M to EF)

"Nikon and Canon would be somewhat late now, and they have much more to lose by disappointing their customer base by making their lenses obsolete."

No, Canon and Nikon are not going to make their DSLR lenses obsolete. They'll do exactly what they have already done: make adapters for their mirrorless bodies. Nikon did it with their Nikon 1 system, and Canon did it with their EF-M system: they offered adapters so that any of their DSLR lenses could be used on their mirrorless bodies. That's what they'll do when they eventually roll out FF mirrorless cameras with short lens register distances. They'll go the adapter route, while offering mirrorless-specific lenses that won't need adapters. Again, Nikon and Canon are already doing this with their existing mirrorless systems (CX and APS-C format, respectively).

Canon already have their mirrorless mount, which is large enough for a FF sensor... I recommend the following to Nikon: 1. Develop a new mirrorless mount large enough to support medium format (MF) sensors. 2. Based on this new mount develop first a camera with FF sensor, later a camera with MF sensor...3. Develop an adapter to use the current F mount lenses4. Create new lenses for the mirrorless mount... Standard primes should be created to support also a larger MF sensor. For size and weight reasons, wide angle and telezooms may only support a FF sensor (or a smaller area of the MF sensor when such a sensor equips the camera).This approach would allow to have two cameras in one: A MF camera with a few very good primes availables, and a "FF" camera (only using a "FF" equivalent area of the MF sensor) with many F mount lenses available (with adapter) and some newer lenses also.

A thin PRO FF MILC body is not an advantage...its an disadvantage .thin body equals poor ergonomics .bit like sony cameras,every sony body update has seen the body's gain more heft .one of the complaints with the A9 is not enough room between the grip and the lense and its the biggest sony MILC to date ..remember just because sony has no pro glass longer than 200mm it not mean canon is not expecting 400mm F2.8 lenses to be used on thier FF MILCthere is no advantage to a short flange distance .When there is no mirror in the wide EF mount.. wide angle lenses can be made with rear elements very close to the sensor .this is not a new concept canon do it now with the EF-s mount as APS-c has a smaller mirror ..we can keep the EF mount and special lenses can still be made for it ..... some leica mount lenses have almost 1/2 the lense inside the body ..if its the flange distance that make DSLRs big why is a Canon AE1 or evan an OM1 tiny compared to a 5D.

A thick body has nothing to do with ergonomics. You could literally take a Canon DSLR, remove the mirror, cut back the midsection by 26mm (the difference between the existing 44mm EF-mount location and Canon's 18mm EF-M mount location), downsize the height of the body (since it no longer needs room below the lens mount for the phase detection AF system hardware or the focusing screen hardware above the mirror box), and still keep the existing DSLR grip size. That would result in a camera body that still maintains the same ergonomics of a DSLR, but without the unnecessary mid-section girth that currently houses the mirror box-- which adds nothing to ergonomics. It's really all about grip size. Just look at mirrorless cameras with generous, deep grips like the Oly E-M1 MKII, Fuji GFX, and Hassy H1D. They all have thick, deep grips, while still maintaining very thin midsections (thanks to the elimination of the fat mirror box). Sony is slowly getting there with each new iteration.

so what you are saying it makes no difference if we keep the the EF mount... what difference will it make if the midsection is thin or thick as the grip sticks past the mount ...the Pany GH5 is as you describe but bigger than the SL1/100D...but the GH5 has 1/2 the sensor missing...so if we keep the mirror box space remove the PD AF space,the EVF will take less space than a OVF +its optical path and with no mirror motor/gearbox...and as technology will have advanced since the SL1/100D was launched as well..canon should be able to fit a FF sensor in a SL1/100D size EF mount MILC.....and its smaller than the m43 GH5.....that having your cake and eating it ...........i better keep my 40mm STM pancake

@davev8 - As for comparisons to the GH5, that's not a fair comparison because the GH5's size doesn't have so much to do with its sensor size but rather its electronics that are designed to support its advanced video capabilities. It's not really representative of m4/3 cameras in general. An Oly E-M10 MKII is a lot thinner and smaller than both the GH5 and SL1.

davev8 - As for how Canon will approach mirrorless FF, it's unlikely that they will just make a DSLR body without a mirror. If that was going to be Canon's approach to mirrorless, they would have done it with their EOS M system. But they clearly did not do that. Canon have basically previewed how they will proceed with mirrorless FF: just look at what they did with mirrorless APS-C. Canon knows very well that "mirrorless" can't just be a DSLR body with the mirror removed, otherwise that's what they would have done with their APS-C mirrorless camera. No, Canon understands that "mirrorless" also needs to have a short flange distance and lenses specifically designed for that short flange distance.

Everyone should know by now that Canon is NOT averse to starting a new lens system with a new mount for a specific goal. In fact, that's their modus operandi! They had the FD lens system, then they made the EF lens system, then EF-M lens system-- each with its own mount.

T3 there was MASSIVE benefits for scraping the FD mount but there are not really any advantage to not keeping EF mount with ML ...most folk say its size ...have you handled a film camera like a canon AE1? ..the AE1 has the bigger FD flange distance yet old FF film cameras are tiny compared to a FF DSLR and the AE1 was not small for a SLR ..so logik will dictate that the flange distance is not holding back the compact design of digital cameras number 2 is lense size ....it can clearly be seen that typically sony FF lenses are no smaller than than Canikon ..some are smaller some are bigger ...a 6D with a tamron 28-75 F2.8 is 200g lighter and smaller than a A7rii and a sony 24-70F2.83 Lense design for wide angles... with no mirror the back element can be as close to the sensor as designers need canon do this now to a certain extent with the EF-s mount ...some rangefinder lenses have 1/2 the lens in the body ...maybe canon will name the FF ML mount EF-sm continued

@davev8 - FD mount has a shorter flange distance than EF: 42mm vs 44mm. Also, old FF film SLRs were small because they had minimal electronic components. Open up any DSLR, and you'll find that it's crammed with a LOT of electronic components. Also, manual focus bodies don't have all the components that AF SLRs need, such as the AF module, etc.https://goo.gl/g0cL6QIt's misguide to take a manual film SLR that is devoid of electronic components and AF systems as a basis for how small AF DSLRs can get.

DSLRs also have complex mirror mechanisms with motors that take up space as much space as the mirror itself!https://goo.gl/LFzJZEhttps://goo.gl/1Z2xsSThese mirror motor components are lacking for mirrorless cameras and small, old manual film SLRs.

As for Canon's future FF mirrorless mount, they will use the one they have already designed specifically for mirrorless: the EF-M mount. EF lenses will be mounted using the EF-M adapter that they already made for this purpose. Occam's razor!

@T3 "As for Canon's future FF mirrorless mount, they will use the one they have already designed specifically for mirrorless: the EF-M mount"... maybe will not be possible to use EF-M for FF mirrorless, because its size is only 47 mm vs 54 of EF and EF-S...

@rawmaz - EF-M mount is fine for FF. Its throat diameter is 47mm. The Sony E-mount is 46mm. Sony E-mount apparently handles FF just fine. Nikon F-mount's throat diameter is only 44mm! So if you think that a 47mm throat diameter is not big enough for FF, then someone should really warn the Nikon F-mount designers! Hahaha. Canon EF-mount has always been unusually large compared to other lens mounts. Pentax K-mount is only 42mm!

There's not a chance in heck that Canon's designers didn't take FF into account when they designed the EF-M mount. No way. Even if they never introduce FF mirrorless, Canon engineers still would have designed EF-M to be large enough for FF-- as a contingency.

Nikon and Canon entering the mirrorless market is a great idea. As DP rightfully pointed out Canon's M series should have been release AT LEAST two years earlier.

The lens compatibility issue can be overcome with good adapters. That's what's made a big difference for E mount. When we see more and more pros using their high end Canon lenses on E mount cameras, Canon should get in on the action, not fight what's already happened.

This is true, and is how I use my Sonys - canon T/Ss, zuiko, nikon, and one sony.

Canon could keep the same mount because it is adaptable to most other mounts - though not the FD (without adding more glass). Still - maybe not the best route.

The Nikon mount is not easily adapted to. Nikon would really be smart to have a more universal mount with a specialized nikon adapter. No time for pride, and it would also allow for a new lens line specialized to mirrorless.

Exactly, I bought into the Sony system mainly because Canon were lacking in the sensor technologies back then, so I want to put all my TSE lenses and all the Zeiss ZE lenses in front of a better sensor, never like the Sony body from day one, now they "almost" caught up on sensor, while still not at the same level as the Sony but the gap is much smaller than before, so if they introduce a mirrorless with slightly improve 5DSR kind of sensor, I will buy one right away. i have tons of great Canon lenses, so all I need is a body and no need to worry about lenses at all.

Yep, in a few years when good adapters are the norm, mirrorless cameras like the Sonys basically become "universal" bodies that will work with just about any lens system. Of course these things will come from innovative third parties, just like we're seeing with third-party flash units now.

I think the BIG amount of EF Lenses is an EXTREMELY important point for Canon - I think it would be stupid to throw this advantage away just to be able to make the body a little bit smaller. Also: a small body with full-frame isn't THAT important in my opninion. If you want to use a good lense, its usualy quite big and heavy. Just look at the Standard-Work-Horse Canon 24-70 2,8 -> at this size and weight it realy doesn't matter if you put a Canon 6d or a Sony A7 behind it.

Also I think that adapted options are just not as good as native options. Of course, there are a lot of combinations that work great, some of them are even better than the native combination: but its not working ALWAYS a 100%. And this is one VERY important thing for people earning money with their camera. I personaly do not want to use equipment that works 98% of the time. Every single EF lense out there is working perfectly on a Canon Body - this reliability is awesome.

"If you want to use a good lense, its usualy quite big and heavy. Just look at the Standard-Work-Horse Canon 24-70 2,8 -> at this size and weight it realy doesn't matter if you put a Canon 6d or a Sony A7 behind it."

I don't know why people say "it doesn't matter". I think size and weight always matter, even when your gear is in your bag or hanging on your shoulder. Just compare a Nikon D750 with Nikon 24-70/2.8 VR to a Sony A7RII with Sony 24-70/2.8 GM (with IBIS providing the stabilization):

Size-wise, it's still a significant difference. And weight-wise, the Nikon combo weighs 1910g (840g for body, 1070 for lens) while the Sony is 1511g (625g for body, 886 for lens). That's 400g more that you're carrying around for no reason. For comparison, a 12oz can of Coke weighs 366g. Why carry extra weight for no particular reason? For those of us who carry multiple bodies, this really starts to add up.

"Also I think that adapted options are just not as good as native options."

Well, people used to say the same about third-party flashes. But these days, third-party flashes are really excellent and work as well as OEM flashes. Likewise, the same used to be said of third-party lenses. But these days, third-party lenses are also excellent and work great. Some people just feel "safer" using all OEM equipment. But for me, if it works it works, and I don't need OEM-everything.

Using native glass can be more important in terms of use within a system, rather than just brand-specifics. For example, you can adapt all kinds of old manual focus full frame glass on a m4/3 body, but because the old glass wasn't designed for that system 90% of the time you'll get better results using a lens of similar proportions that was designed for that sensor and mount.

This tends to be true within brands that offer different systems as well. You can mount a Canon 24-70L lens on a Canon APS-C body, but on that system the Canon 17-55 will give better results, not just because it's designed to offer the FF equivalent 24-70 range, but because it's designed for use with APS-C sensors it will output sharper images.

Usually this is because of sensor size / pixel density. FF glass that looks fine on FF bodies tends to look much more unsharp when a smaller sensor with a higher pixel density samples a smaller portion of the frame.

@T3: Some standard-cameras with standard-lenses:Canon 24-70 2,8 II (800g) + canon 6d (770g) = 1570gSony 24-70 2,8 (886g) + Sony A7II (600g) = 1486gIn this example its just 100g or only 6% -> so weight is realy not that much of a topic here. The Sony is just 170g lighter -> if you put a Fast lense in front of it, this is REALY not a big thing. A 70-200 is about 1,400g -> so this 170g is even less important.

Also I compared totally diffrent aspects: I did not compare mirrorless in general with DSLR. I Compared a Mirrorless with EF mount and a mirrorless with EOS-M Mount. The size and weight diffrence is obviously MUCH smaller than the diffrence in mirrorless vs mirror in general.

@pahnson - Your comparison of Canon 24-70/2.8 is not a good comparison because the Canon doesn't have IS. IS would make that lens much larger and heavier. Look at the Nikon 24-70/2.8. The non-VR version was 900g and 133mm long. The VR version grew to 1070g and 154.5mm long:http://camerasize.com/compact/#567.327,567.479,ha,tUltimately it ends up bein a much larger and heavier setup than the Sony mirrorless with IBIS. I don't see Canon/Nikon adding IBIS to their DSLRs any time soon.

As for supporting "the MASSIVE amount of Canon EF Lenses out there", Canon have already shown how they'll be supporting those lenses: via an adapter. So it's NOT as if Canon are not supporting those existing DSLR lenses! Get that through your heads, people!https://goo.gl/IPi4o0Historically, Canon goes all in with new lenses. That's the m.o. Canon could have adapted the FD mount to AF, just like Nikon and every other brand did. But nope, they started new with new lenses and different mount (EF).

I realy hope they don't go with eos-m when they introduce a mirrorless with a full-frame Sensor. This was maybe a good idea to save some space on the body, but a full-frame body will greatly benefit from all the full-frame lenses and the mount must be anyway quite big...

@pahnson- No, you are quite wrong. Canon's EF-M throat diameter is 47mm. Sony E-mount's diameter is 46mm. Nikon DSLR's F-mount is only 44mm. Leica M-mount is 44mm. Pentax K-mount is 42mm. If EF-M's 47mm throat diameter is insufficient for FF lenses, then someone should really tell Nikon, Leica, Pentax, Sony, etc, before these companies try to make any FF lenses for their mounts! LOL

I think people are really grasping at straws, desperately trying to conjure up any imaginary excuse for why Canon shouldn't use EF-M for FF. You can bet that when Canon engineers designed the EF-M mount system, they designed it to also be able to accommodate FF, as a contingency, whether they ever use it for FF or not.

I use my old Nikkor lenses with my NEX 5N and my a6000, using both a plain adapter and a Lens Turbo Mk II. These two adapters sort of double the number of legacy lenses.Obviously, this does not take advantage of the shorter flange to sensor distance of mirrorless. I believe that lens design for mirrorless is still in its infancy and we should see much better designs than the pancake in the near future. I also believe that the future of mirrorless is more in APS-C or MFT with faster lenses (<1.4) that the bulkier FF with mammoth lenses.

Just for fun, let's pretend that Canon does introduce a FF mirrorless camera next year. If such a camera were to become available, my guess is that it would take EF lenses natively and that Canon would position it above the 6D-2, but below the 5D IV. In other words, around $2800 USD, body only. How many rabid mirrorless fans would actually be willing to cough up the dough? Yes, it would include all of your favorite buzz words, EVF, 2 SD slots, 4k video, silent mode, etc.. 😎

Don't forget IBIS, 24mp and make it $2k and yes it would absolutely devastate Sony sales wise. Canon already has dual pixel technology, its just a matter of slapping on an EVF, and they can already market a basic FF mirrorless.

Using EF lenses natively would mean that it would have the same body size as a DSLR. So it would be a non-starter. If that were Canon's intended path for mirrorless, they would have done it with their EOS M system. But they clearly didn't do that. Canon knows all too well that "mirrorless" really needs the shorter flange distance and narrower body to truly be worthwhile mirrorless. Both Canon and Nikon will eventually come out with true FF mirrorless cameras that have short flange distances. And the way to use existing DSLR lenses is with adapters, which Canon and Nikon are *already* doing with their mirrorless systems (Canon's M system and Nikon's 1 system):

Servo is servo. Some are a little faster. No need to make us buy new lenses for APS and MFT. Its crappy and overamplified IQ is tiring to look at. Cheap MF body with 4k/8k, now that would make lenshopping fun and for 50% usage - no need for af.

...and my expedition pics from 10 years ago with a D40 - wonder how I could have shot great pics with very basic AF...

I really hope Canikon launch mirrorless FF & APS-C very soon, so that all the whiny pussies can run to the shop buying this thing, so we finally get rid of their whining and we all can concentrate again on articles talking about how to take nice, original & funny pictures ...

"The alternative approach: on-sensor phase detection, is in its relative infancy. It may be able to make better use of existing lenses with ring-type motors, but it’s still not clear how well it can interpret significantly defocused scenes."

1. The approach is not in its "relative infancy". It is well into its great-performing adulthood, courtesy of Canon's DPAF.

2. In my 5DMKIV it is already quite clear "how well it can interpret significantly defocused scenes": Brilliantly

This has to stop, this constant downplaying by reviewers and general pundits of the revolutionary things Canon brings to the table, just because all that comes from them "must" be, "have" to be "meh!".

For those who understand what Canon has being doing in what regards to their current events and, most specially, future mirrorless approach, that little puzzle piece- DPAF - was immediately seen as a killer step when it first appeared on the 70D, irrespectively of it not being a mirrorless, precisely because of what is mentioned in this article - the ability to transpose the legacy phase-detection systems approach to smaller devices.

That Canon's breakthrough is still being downplayed in this article, while the very same article lays out one of the possible approaches that, precisely, requires that fully successful, tech-adult solution is something extremly puzzling, from a journalistic POV.

...and, I suspect, come next year, we will all be shown what being adult and mature in what pertains to mirrorless really means...

It's being downplayed only because it hasn't been allowed to flex it's muscles yet in a meaningful way touted by the company. This is why the arguable inherently inferior Sony E OSPDAF is gaining more traction, as it was designed for adapting lenses and works very well at it.

What about the performance of Canon lenses on Sony E bodies through Metabones smart adapters? I have a Sony a7 RII, and some Canon lenses (but they're TS ones, so I didn't need such an expensive adapter), but, as far as I know, Canon EF lenses perform decently (AF wise with the right adapter) on Sony cameras, so there is already a critical mass of users for Canon to research and think about this... I'm not meaning that a Canon adapter for their own EF lenses would be the solution (that adds size, weight and more expense), but, if Metabones is able to make the Canon AF lenses work on a Sony mirrorless, shouldn't Canon be able to do the same on their own hypothetical FF mirrorless?

It's AF tech that's the issue. OSPDAF or DPAF or CDAF or whatever all work in different ways than traditional PDAF. Whether that works well or not is yet to be seen, but there are many different ideas being shot about these days.

However, speaking as someone who developped a contrast-AF algorithm, it is a bit short-sighted. Contrast AF doesn't need to hunt for optimal focus necessarily and it could easily outperform phase detect at severely defocused scenes. The depth from defocus approach may give you an idea. And then there are the dual-pixel AF sensors which still await their proper algorithmic exploitation.

On the mechanical side, consider piezo-driven sensor-hubs (in body, not unlike in-body stabilization, only z rather than x/y-direction). It would do the final focus fine tune operation which all lens AF motors fail at due to mechanical tolerances in the micron range. Ring-type motors are still required for FAST AF with fast tele lenses, mirrorless or not, at least for 300/2.8 class lenses.

Moreover, a lens made for a mirrorless legacy mount could retract into (or use) the empty space.

it's a neat idea. the range of motion would still be far too small for it to work, but what can be made instead is a hybrid — human pushes the manual focus ring into "approximate" focus, then sensor motor achieves critical focus.

Here's a thought, could precision IBIS that also provides for microadjustments of the sensor focal plane be used for a final contrast step to achieve precise focus after the PD gets very close. I think the only problem would be doing so quickly enough in high speed situations like sports but provided there was enough bandwidth and processing power it should be feasible.

I am more concerned by weight than by size, and a box of air does not weigh much. If it simplifies the lens design (I'm asking?) and thereby reduces lens weight, then I can happily accommodate the extra air in my camera bag.

The larger flange distance mandated by that "box of air" means that the lenses have a larger minimum size design limit. There goes more than half of your advantage in going to mirrorless in the first place.

There are many people here who want Nikon and Canon to produce a small EVIL camera body for a new range of small slow wide angle lenses. probably around 5-6 lenses will be smaller depending on choice, the majority of them have never owned or wanted a Nikon or Canon, for various reasons , "I like Fuji Colour" "my m4/3 is as good as a full frame", "my smaller format lenses are smaller and give better reach" and many other very relavent reasons for not buying. They will never buy a small evil Nikon or Canon body but are telling Nikon and Canon users who also will not buy a small evil body that they need one. There are obviously some who will, but look at the "users forums" the majority are in favour of the current mounts, and the arguments are with a minority, or non users who want a new mount. Mirrorless cameras are not cheaper but more expensive than the equivalent DSLR despite the need for fewer componants and assembly being more automated,

The 'big box of air' isn't all bad from my understanding. Sure, it might make the camera bigger, but the closer the lens is to the recording plane, the harder it is for optics to keep things sharp across the frame, and deal with distortion.

As a MFT user, which has very little air gap, I'm well aware of the sometimes significant in-camera processing done to fix distortion caused by that small gap and compact lenses, and the fact that diffraction can start as early f5.6. I'm willing to put up with this in my second system as a trade-off for size. I'm not sure I'd want it introduced into my full-frame system though...

If the camera manufacturers did dump the air gap, how much real difference would it make? And could full-frame lenses be made smaller? I doubt by much.

I get the focus system design issues, but I suspect body tech will help to get around that with new lenses phased-in. I doubt sports pros will be reaching for the new mirrorless cameras for a while though.

@DrB Indeed, and I don't have the knowledge to say whether it does make a superior lens. But if it does, then I'd rather accommodate the extra volume once only in my camera bag - within the frame of the camera - rather than multiple times - in each lens.

when there is no mirror you can still use that empty box of air for the back of the lense if needed ...this is not new canon do this now to a certain extent with the EF-s mount as APS-c has smaller mirrors ...range finders have been doing this for +50 years ..some Leica fit wide angles lenses have almost 1/2 the lense inside the body ...so how small can you make a FF camera with a long flange mount ...have you compared how tiny a olympus OM 1 film camera is compared to a FF DSLR

Putting a short flange on a camera doesn't necessarily make it that much smaller, once a lens is put on it. A 50mm focal length is 50mm, so the center of focus will still be 50mm out in front of the sensor. The camera/lens package will still have the same depth from front element to the back of the camera.Of course there are advantages to a short flange, like weight, and size with a wide angle lens, but there are disadvantages too. It is harder to use heavy long lenses on a short flange body.

The benefits to a short flange are negligible for full frame systems, the bodies get smaller but the lens don't. The bulk Sony's mirrorless full-frame lenses are larger and heavier than their slr equivalents.

Canon has been able to achieve size and weight reductions with their EF-M lenses across the board, with arguably better construction (metal bodies) and better optical performance than their EF-S counterparts. It's hard to tell from images on the web, but these EF-M lenses are downright tiny, and very light. I am quite confident that Canon would be able to achieve similar size/weight reductions with a FF mirrorless system.

the smallness (is that a word) of the M lenses are partly down to the latest optical design, slow max F stop (the 18-150 is at F6.3 by 70mm!!)and they tend to have more vignetting...the M lenses would grow in size if they was faster and had less vignetting ..they probably will still be smaller but not by as much.....apparently the advantage of the short FL distant disappears over 35mm

@davev8 - actually, I find that EF-M lenses are optically superior to their EF-S counterparts, and many others agree. But we have to look at the lenses combined with the bodies. In the comparison below, choose the SMALLEST DSLR that Canon makes, the Canon SL1. And as you can see, the overall size of the mirrorless body and lens are STILL much smaller than the DSLR.

Something is wrong. The cell phones going to be bigger and bigger and our cameras smaller and smaller... Why?I no need smaller camera. I have big hands. Generations of photographers had SLR cameras and no one had problem with size. Why now we have to have small cameras? I believe that Canon will introduce Mirrorless camera with classic EF mount and with the same arrangement of the buttons as DSLRs have. Size can be the same; just can be a little bit thinner. I think that Canon will introduce a something between DSLR and Mirrorless for professionals first. My idea is they first introduce a camera with big body, mirror and ability to switch into faster mode with mirror lock up and live view. It is necessary to learnt professionals that there is way without the mirror...When professionals try the way without a mirror, then will be possible to release a new 100% mirrorless body. Sony A9 looks great, but professionals are quite conservative I think.

DR Blackjack ...exactly. thats what i always say .so when a film camera that has a large flange distance is tiny compared a FF DSLR ..logic most dictate that the flange distance is not the culprit for the size of the FF DSLR

@Dr Blackjack, I come from an Olympus OM background so I'm no stranger to small SLR cameras, and I still like the handling of my OM1 with the shutter speed controlled by the ring behind the lens mount. All my right hand had to do was hold the body and press the shutter (and advance the film). Nowadays my right hand is a lot busier - control aperture +/- shutter speed with dials, select focus point, back button AF, ISO, drive mode etc. The tasks that use the thumb in particular are much easier with a modern DSLR style body than with an OM1 shaped slim mirrorless body. Both the thickness and the chunky grip help.I will often hike for hours with my 6D in my right hand (with a smallish lens like 24-105), and it's much more comfortable than when when I did the same with my smaller, lighter OM1 and 35-70.

The transition may be clunky, but with technology advancing so quickly, is it hard to believe that one year from now we'll see a solution that perfectly marries DSLR lenses with mirrorless bodies? Every year we see new tech that blows our minds, and so nothing seems impossible at this point. Let's wait and see.

Camera technology is not advancing quickly. We're still using the same design from 30+ years ago, just pushing out more interpolated pixels through it and striving to make it automated.The mirrorless/DSLR/pixyphone debate is irrelevant. It's just mindless mush to keep you preoccupied with what you should be spending your money on next.

@fmian - what in the world are you talking about? Camera technology has advanced ENORMOUSLY from 30+ years ago! I think you are confusing "form" with "technology". The first Canon EOS camera, the EOS 650 introduced in 1987 may look similar in form to a Canon 80D today, but virtually everything inside it is totally different, except for the flippy reflex mirror and lens mount. It had a single AF point!

I was talking about the Bayer filter.Most camera based tech from the last 30 years has been a crutch for the photographers lack of ability. Meanwhile the look of base ISO output has barely changed, if at all.

@fmian - still don't know what you're talking about. Base ISO has made significant progression in resolution and DR over the years. I remember my first DSLR, the Canon 10D. It had 6mp, very poor DR, and even at base ISO it sucked compared to even the cheapest DSLRs today at higher ISO! So to say that "base ISO output has barely changed, if at all" is total BS. Go back to using *any* DSLR from 10 years ago and tell me if there is "barely any change, if at all", hahaha!

Re: your comment that "most camera based tech from the last 30 years has been a crutch for the photographers lack of ability", that's just a snobbish whiner's argument. When autoexposure was first introduced, people like you whined "it's a crutch!" Same with autofocus, and image stabilization, and everything else. If people like you were in charge, we'd still be using manual focus, manual exposure cameras, because everything else is just "a crutch for lack of ability." Whiners gonna whine!

Of course there are big advantes in the sensor and the resolutions. But it does not change anything in a FUNDAMENTAL way. The quality is better and the AF faster... The mirror may be gone and the EVF became quite usable. But its not changing the way we use a camera. A canon 5d classic just works the very very same a 5d iv works - after what, 12 years (from a viewpoint of the photographer)? Of course, the resolution, DR and AF is from another world. This is not necessary a bad thing. But i think the focus should be on what we photograph and how we take photos, not only on the technologicaly side. Because after all the content matters, the story you tell. Not so much the resolution. And it doesn't matter at all, if your camera has a mirror or not...I also think that the advances on the mobile front are MUCH bigger thant on the DSLR front. The Canon 5d II had a quite similar image quality as the Canon 5d III -> after 4 years. If you take a look at a Galaxy S4 vs. a Galaxy S8 its INSANE.

Saying the DSLR scene hasn't changed is like saying phones have not changed since Bell's time, since after all we're still using numbers to call other people. Nevermind that we're now tapping numbers on a touch-sensitive screen instead of using the rotary dial.

Same for DSLR. You could say the form factor hasn't changed much, but sensors have evolved tremendously, etc etc yada yada. A camera today is much better than one from 5 years ago, let alone 30 years ago.

@virtualreality, for someone who uses "virtual reality" as a handle, you sure sound pessimistic. Curved monitors used to be a Star Trek fantasy, but now lots of places use it. Floppy discs were considered the compact form of storage for a long time, but now we have these micro-SDs that hold a million times more data. Why is it so hard to believe that the tech geeks can figure this out, when other hurdles have already been conquered?

@dashThat's exactly the point. There never was a solution to marrying hard drives, floppy drives and memory cards. People accepted that technology had changed and moved on. Today solutions are readily available. But the DSLR crowd are buying floppy disks as if their lifes depend on it.

@virtualreality, I hear you now. If you had said that the first time, I would have gotten your message. My own point, perhaps unclearly stated, was that it would not be a surprise if they came up with a solution to marry the two because technology has been turning the once-impossible into possible.

Lol @virtualrealityYou're saying it as if there is a floppy disc > memory card difference between DSLR and mirrorless. There isn't.It's more like saying we have existing 3.5in floppy disc users, and you want everyone to change to a new type of floppy disc which is exactly the same but has the metal sliding shutter removed so there are less moving parts. But in reality, it's gonna take about 7-8 years to iron out all the problems associated with removing that one thing and making it work as good as the thing it's supposed to replace.Essentially, they are the same thing inside. Why should people change? So we have to buy more batteries?

I have a question, what kind of design does Canon use in their movie cameras? The C100, C300 are compatible with EF mount lenses. These movie cameras could be used as a base for designing a mirrorless camera?

I have no expertise in camera design, and the discussion on the article above did not mention the Canon movie cameras, for me they look like mirrorless cameras.Canon has experience with these products. They could use to launch a new line of mirrorless, which could be less error prone.My question is just a question to the author.

For example, I have a Sony a6300, which has been highly rated, but for me it is not a very reliable camera. It stops taking pictures, when the camera overheats. On the same environment and temperature my Canon DSLR never stopped working. The Sony is smaller but sometimes it just doesn't take pictures. I live in Brazil, and the Sony stopped working on a day at the club when the temperature was around 27 degrees Celsius, after more or less 100 pictures. With the Canon I took more than 400 pictures in 2 hours, and the temperature was around 32 degrees Celsius.

I just got back from a week in Taiwan shooting with an A6000. Even in very hot and humid conditions, I've never had an issue with my A6000. I've also shot with it extensively on trips to Dubai, India, Sri Lanka, Thailand, etc. Again, I've never had an issue with the camera not operating in any of these hot and humid conditions. And I even have it in a silicon body case, too, lol! http://imgur.com/a/xSWDZ

The ephebic Mr Butler commits blasphemy with his mini-screed against full frame lenses on small-sensor cameras.He forgets—or was never taught by his elders—that APS-C cameras use the "sweet spot" of a full-frame lens. It was an oft-repeated mantra at the dawn of the digital age and people back then didn't lie like they do now.

Starting October 1st, Getty Images will no longer accept images in which the models have been Photoshopped to "look thinner or larger." The change was made due to a French law that requires disclosure of such images.

A court ruling our of Newton, Massachusetts has set an important legal precedent for drone pilots: federal drone laws will now trump local drone regulations in situations where the two are in conflict.

macOS High Sierra came out today, but if you use a Wacom tablet you need to wait a few weeks before you upgrade. According to Wacom, they won't have a compatible driver ready for you until "late October."

Vitec, the company that owns popular accessory maker Manfrotto, has just acquired JOBY and Lowepro for a cool $10.3 million in cash. The acquisition adds JOBY and Lowepro to Vitec's already sizable collection of camera gear brands.

A veteran photojournalist, Rick Wilking secured a spot in the path of totality for the August solar eclipse. While things didn't quite pan out as predicted, an unexpected subject in the sky and a quick reaction made for a once-in-a-lifetime shot.